x99

Reading more of this stuff from Naramore, it got me thinking (and researching). I suspect Josh Naramore--or at least the department he leads--is increasingly detested among stakeholders in the downtown business community. Unfortunately, this is perhaps justifiably so. The department is led by an apparent ideologue who publicly trashes parking ramps and cars. It's not exactly news that the city, with Naramore leading the way, seems to be doing all it can to drive out "mode shift" downtown office and retail users, despite already having alarming vacancy rates. Instead of providing a message that downtown parking is easy, affordable, and accessible--which is necessary for the growth of any city in Grand Rapids' shoes--Naramore constantly shouts from the rooftops that parking is full, pricey, and only going to get worse. I would be a bit loathe to criticize a city employee who is just doing his or her job, but I'm not sure that is the case here. I think Naramore sees his job as destroying that which he is in charge of running. Is this really what the city hired this guy to do? Naramore's bio (see: https://danielrosecenter.org/people/josh-naramore/ and repeated elsewhere) gives away his agenda. " This [Naramore's] role assists the City’s economic development and quality of life goals by increasing the number of people who take transit, walk, bike, or commute/travel in a way other than driving alone. " Is that actually his job description, or is that something he came up with? Given this quote elsewhere, I rather suspect he came up with that description which is entirely dismissive of 95% of the workforce and their quality of life: "So, 10 percent of the city’s workforce should be doing that, something other than driving alone and parking in the facility, such as parking more remotely and taking transit in or biking or just taking transit." Thus, the real question is whether the city assigned him this "mission" or whether it's something he is pushing himself. Recall back a year when there was this stupid dispute about a symbolic vote whether the Commission ought to formally instruct "Mobile GR" to improve the parking scenario, and give the business community a ray of hope. The rejoinder was that this was unnecessary, and that obviously they were doing this. Yet, if they are, Naramore repeatedly seems to give short shrift to--and arguably openly dislikes--a mode of transit used by more than 95% of downtown users. No surprise, then, that his "role" doesn't mention a word about increasing the efficient and capacity of--or even managing, for that matter--the City's parking system. Don't believe me? Look at the man's Twitter feed for evidence: https://twitter.com/joshnaramore?lang=en. The person supposedly managing our parking department has a Twitter feed which lauds buses and bikes, and casts doom, gloom, and aspersion on parking ramps and those who use them. Why in the world would you hire someone to manage a business--particularly the rather cash-rich parking department--when he often derides vehicles and parking structures, and seeks ways to get people to stop using the stuff that makes the money? It's like hiring Jeff Bezos to run a mom and pop bookstore. You mean going there suddenly completely stinks and is far more hassle than it used to be? Well, golly! You mean parking suddenly stinks after the city hired a guy whose bio is all bikes, buses, and mode shifting and zippo about parking? Well, golly! The city ought to hire someone with actual expertise and experience in parking to the run the parking department, and put Naramore in charge of a tiny little department with 5% of the budget of the parking department, which roughly represents the fraction of people who give two rips about and support the nonsense he is constantly promoting. Yeah, yeah, I know. As an urbanist a post like this is probably apostasy. But not really. I want a vibrant city full of buildings and shops, and to which people from the suburbs will travel. I really don't care in the slightest how they get here, and it makes no sense to me to be so openly hostile to their chosen transport method. Grand Rapids is not New York, it is not Chicago, and it is not even Portland. It's a freaking snow-belt city where it takes 12 minutes to get downtown via highway. Unless Naramore plans to blow up that highway, he's got a problem he will never, ever solve by trashing the parking system. The man lives in a fantasy world with blinders on. Again, just read the Twitter feed...

So, here we go... Fairly nice overall design. But. This building has a lot going for it, so I'm a little hesitant to criticize, but from a materials perspective, it's a little off. I get that the clapboard siding is a "nod" to the old Wild Bunch building, but it's a little strange. I can't recall hardly any buildings from any period in time where someone picture framed clapboard with bricks. I just looked at a photo of the old building, and the best part of was the bracketed cornice and the window hoods. It could have been restored (before the fire) and painted and been one of the more attractive buildings. Clapboard or brick the whole thing, and for the "Wild Bunch" nod do a nice cornice and some window hoods. Done. Of course, there could be a real strong "Wild Bunch" element. The clapboards sort of look like maybe the bricks were failing and someone cheaply covered them up with whatever they could find. They really should have used some plywood sheets somewhere. That would be full on Wild Bunch.

I think you need to re-up to Architectural Digest. Apart from the cheap cabinets with a lack of crown and other high-end stuff (not expected in an apartment), it's pretty well on-trend. White cabinets and trim had their day in the sun, but it's fading. Thank goodness. Granted, I'd still put them into a flip since 2005 is still fresh and new around here. If that' s actual wood, it's a much better choice long-term than plastic doors and dollar store 3.25" colonial trim.

One of those guys, eh? Randomly blame stuff on the big "R" with not even a whiff of data? There are a lot of reasons other than "racism" that people living in the suburbs don't want to pay for a bunch of trains and buses. See "won't-use-it-don't-want-it-hate-taxes".

It has no parking whatsoever. Not even a single, lonely space. They would be doing well to clear a quarter million. The old Christian Scientist church had a huge parking lot, and it went for, what--$600k or something (for continued use as a church)? Since this is in a historic district, it's unusually difficult to repurpose something like this. I cannot imagine what anyone would ever do with this. I'm a little afraid to find out.

This is baffling. How can a tenant possibly be displaced unless the lease was up anyway? Putting a tenant out before the lease is up is going to require action from a judge, who I assume would not permit it. Once the lease is up, the tenant could have been put out anyway for any reason or no reason at all. How is anyone supposed to figure out whether that tenant ever would have had that lease renewed by the former landlord? This whole concept just seems like its ripe for abuse.

Most bicyclists are fairly respectful, but what of those who are not? What if the oncoming traffic is very heavy and the cyclist hogs the lane? The line of cars 40 cars deep is just supposed to continue to build up because the guy on the bike won't pull over? I'm all for enforcement against people who needlessly get too close, but at the same time, they need to pass a strong ordinance against impeding traffic, and pass out piles of tickets to guys huffing and puffing their way up Fulton hill in the middle of the lane during rush hour. If I had a big diesel truck, I'd be really tempted to roll some coal out my tailpipe when finally getting around some of those guys.... Ah, I'm such a curmedgeon.

No its not. Every single apartment dweller with kids under the age of 10 is going to be badgered to move into this thing, that's why. If you're ever in the proximity of a little kid while you are anywhere within eyesight of this building, you will immediately understand all you need to know. This building is like a lollipop coated in chocolate syrup and sprinkles.

Well, I would disagree. I'm all for a historic district gas station. Put one of these miserable urban streetfront holes to its proper use. 8' tall gas pumps with globes on top, and a guy that pumps it for you and cleans your windows, with two oil-change bays. I think it could be quite the attraction, done right. And the secret with these things is you only need the two pumps with four nozzles to serve as many cars as a modern 8 pump stations. The gas blasts out far quicker from the old full-serve style pumps, and you don't have people wandering inside for snacks and smokes.Your gas man has Chesterfields and Lucky Strikes right on his belt!

By the end of the day, she'll finally be down to a decapitated tower, sans crane. The last piece of the counterweight is about to make its way to the ground. I can't believe how long it takes to pull one of these things back apart.

Yup. I postponed a major project I had planned to do, since it wasn't essential. Rather than do it myself, I figured I'd wait until everything hits the skids again or I have time to swing my own hammers. For what some of these guys are charging, it just isn't worth it.

With all due respect to the preservation community, this is perfect example of historic preservation gone awry. How much better wouldn't this be if that old gas station was razed and building was brought to the street (or another building brought in front of it)? Oh, well. Wealthy just has so many of these awful old gas stations ruining the urban fabric, and they're all sacred, apparently.

Steel increases? No. Materials cost increases play a small role. It's contractors charging whatever they feel like because they all have more work than they know what to do with.

Virtually no family of four with a six figure income is going to live without a car. Just get over that ridiculous fantasy. Enough, already. You clearly were never in a downtown parking ramp at 7PM 10 years ago and then in one today. Even the people who bought stuff right downtown mostly have car(s). You might save a few bucks on commute gas, best case. That's how I lie to myself and tell myself I make up the tax difference. For a company already in the suburbs, moving your HQ (and executive suite) downtown makes no sense. I'm just glad Wheeler finally made the point (albeit indirectly) that the way the city chooses to manage and fund itself means it really only markets to people without a lot of disposable income. You can't support lots of Class A office space and expensive residential with that formula in a market like this. Are taxes the only factor that are a problem? No, but they're another nail in the office space coffin, on top of the nailed on, spiked, dead, and buried lid on the retail coffin. I'm glad someone is finally publicly pointing to more problems other than parking. This Studio Park project is only the latest in a string of stillborn office and residential projects. It's high time to starting identifying some causes. Hint: None of the causes are "lack of public transit" which none of the projects have relied on. Edit: I thought I had run across a study at one point explaining the city income tax problem. Here it is: https://www.nber.org/papers/w2197.pdf. If you don't care to read through pages of complex regression analysis and math, the important takeaway for our purposes here is this: "Assuming constant total tax revenue... the net effect of shifting away from property taxes toward income taxes is to reduce the size of the property tax base." The corollary would be that the net effect on development of a higher income tax versus elsewhere is indeed to shift development elsewhere, or stop it from happening at all.

Erickson's has their big green mobile crane out today. Bye, bye tower.

John Wheeler is smart guy who builds to a price where he's going to make a profit. Much of what they do seems heavily client client-driven in the office space, with next to no office space on spec. So, how much of the boring downtown office chintz is actually Orion's fault vs the primary tenant's fault? No idea. But this is not a guy who wants to risk going bust on a grand vision. And he's got a great insight here: “That’s the question [whether a major suburb office user would come downtown] I’ve been asking myself since I got into the business,” Wheeler said, noting that the city’s income tax and lack of free, available parking continue to serve as a hindrance for poaching large employers from the suburbs. I think that hits the nail on the head right there. The income tax is incredibly stupid for a city this size when no one surrounding us has one. I haven't really gone into depth on this in years here (probably since our last RenZone discussion). But, in light of this, the discussion warrants revisiting. High(er)-end white collar office users have the same incentive not to come (or to leave) that high income residents do: $200,000 in income for a couple results in $150,000 out the window (assuming static salaries) over 20 years with an 8% discount (interest) rate on the foregone money. Over the course of a 30 year career, it's a $340,000 penalty to live and work in the city. Then if you live here you (probably) have to pay for schools on top. Screw that. Even if you shrink it down to $100k, well, it's still a $170,000 hit to live and work. So, move the office or the house to GR, and your retire account magically shrinks by $85,000 (unless you're making it up in gas or time). And that's for someone who "only" makes $100k. Convincing a high end office user to make a deal with their employees like this is probably next to impossible. As long as the CFO can do math.

I'm just counting my blessings on an attractive design element that is more than one story tall and which is fairly pedestrian friendly. Couldn't agree more with gr8scott about the theater entrance. It's rather understated, which isn't how I would have thought a downtown theater would do things. Hopefully it's a bit more bold in person. Someone needs to call Cinemark and ask them how to do "the movies" right.

Construction accidents are horrible. But I do sort of wonder about one of the comments over at mlive. Someone claims "That Man was someone who I called my father" with a number of people offering condolences. The username? Darwin. I really, really hope that's a bad coincidence and not some jerk who thinks the entire internet is 4chan. Thoughts and prayers to this worker's family. I cannot imagine getting that call.

I think you're right that we're just filling space with a lot of stuff. Lately, I've heard a lot of unprompted "looks cheap" or similar comments around projects like Warner Tower. It is so bad that it makes Fifth Third Center look like an architectural tour de force. I don't know if those panels actually are cheap--various sources suggest they are not, both in initial costs and long term maintenance and efficiency--but it's hard to argue with the assessment that they look cheap and tacky, like pieces of plexiglass with metal covering the seams. Is there really anyone who thinks that looks "high end"? It's hard to imagine how that building could have been designed and built to be more bland, generic, and thoughtless. Despite its faults, if the Hinman Tower actually does get built, it shouldn't suffer from being an insipid glass garbage pile like Warner Tower or the similarly horrible corrugated metal trash cans popping up all over town.

Simulated? Just use real ones. They aren't exactly expensive, either. I can't believe they would use plate glass on the street facades. It's just tacky. (... and here's hoping someone at least loosely affiliated with CWD reads this. Sam Cummings is a good friend of historic preservation, which is why I'm questioning so strongly that they would do a variety of things that could take what smelled at first like a fairly noble preservation effort into a half-baked, ugly remuddle.)

If they don't put appropriate windows in, even if they are just cheap double-hungs, it will not look good in the end. It would be very unfortunate to spend all of this money and then blow it on the details. I've never really understood this project from the start. If it was not to restore the buildings, then why bother with all of this? Some half-baked effort could well be worse than if they had just left things well enough alone. Hopefully they at least make the front facades look right.

I would say the business is finished and the concept is changing, if this thread is at all accurate. Marie Catrib's appears to own their building and does not rent. So the supposed $900k was probably for the building. If you're also buying a business, you don't coordinate the sale so terribly that you have half a dozen news articles all saying the place you just bought is closing.

My silly thought process on this: If I get no parking, then why should I have to mow the city's lawn between the sidewalk and the street? Requiring homeowners to pay to park on their own street is a complete scam, as is allowing every lot owner to claim spaces by occupants. Each owner should be allocated free spaces annually in accordance with their frontage and available parking on the block they front. Claimed spaces can be leased, transferred, etc. Unclaimed spaces get auctioned off annually. Fair solution, and as I've argued before, possibly the only good solution to the "no parking micro unit" swindle which can suck up acres of neighborhood street parking to service a single small project.

Tired of it or not (I am), it's an important conversation. It's one New Urbanists have been having for decades. Blank slate developments have an enforcement mechanism--lots of covenants and restrictions. Cities do not. A quality built environment is entirely voluntary. Form-based zoning codes have taken a small stab at it, but even that can only go so far. If the economics prove that more attractive and quality structures also attract more people, we'll at least have a quality build environment, but there are bound to be false starts along the way. For fifty years, we completely forgot how to design urban areas (although the art of it was arguably preserved to some extent inside of shopping malls). So far as Wealthy specifically, assuming you could turn this into a heavily developed commercial corridor, you will run into problems trying to "enhance" the existing aesthetic. Those corner gas stations and the remaining houses on Wealthy are all protected, as are the houses off-Wealthy you need to tear down for parking lots. That could be a tough nut to crack, but it may be years before that needs to become a real conversation.

You stole the words from my mouth. The bright side is that it's an uninteresting brick people warehouse instead of an uninteresting metal panel people warehouse. That's progress, at least. Too bad they can't just recreate what was there. Close to the same size, and much prettier. EDIT: Thinking about this, I realized another issue with this. Previously, this was two buildings. The best small-scale urban projects will often take a single building and put two or more facades on it to keep maintain a varied streetscape. That probably would have helped.